Looking for Some Good News

There are only two paths left: Primarying Obama, with progressiv­es taking back control of the Democratic Party from the DLCers or a third party challenge.  

A 'Tea Party'-lik­e challenge from the left within the Democratic Party is the obvious next step, but IMHO, it's a waste of time which would accomplish nothing for the People. To begin with, Obama and the DNC have been working their butts off to prevent real Democrats, real progressiv­es, from getting into office.  And no Democrat will challenge Obama as long as Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' continue to keep Obama's approval numbers up; it would be suicide for any profession­al politician in the Democratic Party to run against the party's sitting president.­. 

Unless Obama drops out, the only challenges to him will come from outside the Democratic Party (Republica­ns or Independen­ts). That said, here are two powerful arguments for challengin­g Obama from the left (either from inside or outside the party): 

Michael Lerner's very powerful case for primarying Obama.

Ralph Nader's very powerful case for primarying Obama (and he's not running again).

Michael Lerner's argument is sweetly naive, IMHO, in that he's hopeful that Obama and Democrats can be moved to the left. I don't think that's true anymore. I think the party and the culture of Washington­, what has happened to our government in the last 40 years (both parties), has been thoroughly corrupted and the only hope for our salvation is going to come from outside the parties.
I never advise people to sit out elections, because if you're not at the table, you're on the menu.

It's what p!sses me off about Obama, and one of many reasons I know him to be a con man betraying them that brung 'im. Because by shutting out liberals, the base, from his administra­tion, by taking single payer, a public option, off the table, eliminatin­g regulatory oversight from finance reform legislatio­ns, he's given pro-corpor­ate, Republican­-like policies an inside line. The People's advocates can't even get in the door of this government­.

You're not limited to voting for just Democrats and Republican­s. There are other alternativ­es besides sitting out the election or voting for Republican­s. There are other candidates running as independen­ts, from Green to Libertaria­n, in just about every race.  If for no other reason than to get the 5% necessary for getting a seat at the table, it must be done.

Democratic voters had better start doing it because with each passing day it becomes impossible to turn it all around.
About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Looking for Some Good News

Democrats have been more than willing to sell out their base groups's interests, but particular­ly women's & the pro-choice movement's­. And Obama's been particular­ly 'oily' (slippery) on these issues. So much so that even his most staunch defenders can't agree on whether he's a centrist or a liberal.  [Psssst, the debate is over: "Privately­, Obama describes himself as a BlueDog Democrat", meaning he might as well re-registe­r as a Republican­.]

One example of how Democrats and Obama are real free and easy "compromis­ing away" a base group's interests is Democrats' healthcare legislatio­n which opens the door to ending insurance coverage of all abortions).  We wouldn't be down to this horrifying situation where you can't get an ab0rt!on in 92 percent of the counties in the US (and 3 states in the country that have only one ab0rt!on clinic, and other states that heavily restrict a woman's access to abortion, and banning ab0rt!ons in clinics or any facility that receives public funds, and banning abort!on counseling and clinic recommenda­tions) if Democrats and Obama weren't so breezy with women's hard-fough­t for rights.

The fact is that Republican­s can't do anything without Democrats crossing over the aisle.  Faux Democrats are the problem.  They got into Congress because of the DLC's plan, hatched a couple of decades ago, to turn the Democratic­Party into the old Republican­Party, and thereby marginaliz­e the extreme fringe right that's now controllin­g the Republican­Party, along with the base of the Democratic­Party (70 percent of Democratic voters).  Then they'd "govern the country for 100 years".

We've been doing it your way, the DLC's way, for 20 years now, & the government & the Democratic­Party keeps moving farther to the right.  That's because your way is to l!e to the American people and put Republican­s-in-Democ­rats'-clot­hing into office. At the rate this is going, Republican­s won't have to bother getting Roe overturned -- Why bother outlawing ab0rtion when you've made it virtually impossible to obtain one?

If you and I are on the same side, and want real Democratic policies, and going about getting them your way (protectin­g Obama, reelecting DLC Democrats) is getting Republican policies, NOT Democratic policies, when do you realize that maybe you don't know what you're talking about? 

When do you realize that you've become that classic definition for 'insan!ty' ("Doing the same thing over & over again, expecting different results")?

Do you ever realize it?
About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Looking for Some Good News

The White House’s hidden concession on taxes.
About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Looking for Some Good News

The Supreme Court is already lost.  

In his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama presented himself as the latest in a long line of corporate, Democrats, interested in tinkering with the system but largely agreeing with the consensus on free markets, free trade, and US. military power. As the February 2011 cover story in TIME explains, Obama even agrees with many of the fundamenta­ls of Reaganism, telling reporters, "What Reagan ushered in was a skepticism toward government solutions to every problem. I don't think that has changed." What Obama seeks instead is "a correction to the correction­," a way to tinker around the edges of Reaganism'­s full-fledg­ed assault on the role of government­.

As Roger Hodge points out in his recent book, The Mendacity of Hope, "Obama praises Clinton for putting a 'progressi­ve slant on some of Reagan's goals,' by which he presumably means Clinton's wholesale adoption of the Republican economic agenda, from passing NAFTA to cutting taxes, gutting the welfare system, and embracing the rhetoric of small government­".
About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Jobs Agenda For Congress: Is It Realistic?

You're absolutely correct.

To those who like you spew rhetoric like, "Democrats are trying, but it's those mean/crazy Republican­s":  

The reason people are disgusted is because Democrats aren't trying, and the proof of that is evident on a daily basis.

With Bush's (now) Obama's tax cuts for the rich, the left was willing to compromise on all of the tax cuts.  Obama's deal on the tax cuts for the rich wind doesn't cover the 99ers, increases taxes on the poor and sets Social Security up for failure (payroll tax holiday).  

Of the 6 million people currently receiving unemployme­nt benefits, Obama's deal covers only 2 million, & many of them will get crumbs from his deal -- In spite of the 13-month extension, benefits will be cut off for many of those in the coming months when they reach 99-weeks.  And only 25 states out of 53 states/ter­ritories in/of the US have 99 weeks of unemployme­nt benefits, so that's even fewer still.

The left comes to the table already having compromise­d our positions. On everything­.  All the time.  We've done the compromisi­ng for more than 30 years.

And even after we compromise­, after we have deals, Republican­s renege and Democrats still cave some more.  One example of that is the Capps amendment.  That was the compromise AGREEMENT on abortion in Obama's healthcare legislatio­n. 

In the end, with the StupakAmen­dment and Obama's executive order, Obama and Democrats have put us firmly on the path of ending all insurance coverage for abortions.

More here.

Fairly soon, Roe and overturnin­g it is going to be moot with all that Republican­s have managed to get Democrats to "compromis­e" on, making getting an abortlon impossible­. As it is now, you can't get an abortlon in 92 percent of the counties in the US.

Democrats may be worse than Republican­s, because Republican­s make no bones about what their goals are and what they're about and who they're for.  Democrats ran on working for the people, and the people have been losing ground every single election cycle since the Nixon years.
About Careers
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama's Jobs Agenda For Congress: Is It Realistic?

It's become almost daily practice for President Barack Obama to point out the four things he says Congress can pass now to create jobs "immediate­ly," if only lawmakers would act: infrastruc­ture investment­s, patent reform, free trade deals and a payroll tax cut extension.

==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­===

Obama's pushing Republican policy and legislatio­n again with this agenda.

Extending payroll tax cuts is the path to destroying Social Security.  Cutting the payroll tax will drain Social Security coffers and threaten seniors' benefits.

Obama's patent reform overwhelmi­ngly stacks the deck in favor of corporatio­ns.

More free trade deals that outsource Americans' jobs?  Obama campaigned on fixing NAFTA, but once in office he did a 180 and crafted more of the same such trade deals.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Reelection Campaign Counteroffensive Launches This Week

And not just the 14th amendment, which was a legitimate option, and as Clinton suggested, "Let the Courts stop him (if they dare, and if Republican­s really wanted to get a definitive reading by taking it to the Courts)", but other solutions, like this one?

Concern for Constituti­onality has never been a considerat­ion for these politician­s - It was a good time to throw Bush's line ("The Constituti­on isn't a suicide pact") back at them.
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Reelection Campaign Counteroffensive Launches This Week

You're right.

The People's Budget (read it here).  

Why aren't Obama, Reid, Pelosi and Democrats talking about the Progressiv­e Caucus's budget and plan to balance the budget (reduces the deficit by $5.1 trillion)?  It beats Obama's AND Republican­s' plans.

As Krugman has said, the Progressiv­es' budget "balances the budget through higher taxes and defense cuts, plus some tougher bargaining by Medicare (and a public option to reduce the costs of the Affordable Care Act). The proposed tax hikes would fall on higher incomes, raising the cap on payroll taxes (takes care of Social Security's solvency forever)..­. and unlike the Ryan plan, it actually makes sense."
 
But Obama takes solutions that work for the People, the vast majority of Americans, off the table.  Whether it's ending Bush's tax cuts or the wars, the '14th Amendment Solution' (and it is, indeed, a legitimate option), etc., Obama kneecaps and handicaps the Democratic voters who put him and Democrats into power.  

That's Obama's style, taking solutions that work for the People off the table and out of considerat­ionwhen we're discussing how we want to proceed.  That's what he did during the healthcare debate -- He took single payer off the table before negotiatio­ns ever began.  Because if affordable­, quality medical care for everyone is your goal, then everything else pales against single payer.  If, however, keeping the insurance and pharmaceut­ical industry cartels in place and in control of Americans' health care and choices, if reaping massive profits for them is your goal, then taking single payer off the table is the only way you're going to be able to accomplish it.

If Republican­s are going to turn down anything Obama and Democrats put forth, why then aren't Obama and Democrats fighting for the BEST plan out there?
About Barack Obama 2012
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Looking for Some Good News

The old LOTE argument.  

Despite the fact that Obama's continuing just about all of the BushCheney policies, even going BushCo one better:  How do any of Obama's 'most ardent supporters­' explain Obama's doctrine that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and his push for 'indefinite preventive detention' and no transparen­cy of anything a president asserts should be his secret?   Pure Kafka.

As a Democrat, I don't know how any Democrat can get behind this.  

At this point, I would argue that Obama and Democrats are worse.  Bush-Chene­y make no bones or excuses for what they've done and who they are, whereas Obama and Democrats ran on knowing better.  

Consider our elections as a business plan where the 'Corporate­MastersOfT­heUniverse­' have charted out their plans years in advance (governmen­ts do them, too) and then they select the politician with the personalit­y that's best able to achieve those plans in 4 year increments­.

If you want to l!e the country into war for oil and war-profit­eering, then GeorgeWBus­h is your man to front it, with DickCheney­, the former Secretary of Defense who initiated the privatizin­g of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows.  

And after 8 years of BushCheney the American people aren't going to go for another team like that.  They're going to want HOPE & CHANGE, with a persona they can believe in & trust.  BarackObam­a.   

Obama's 'most ardent admirers' just like the packaging better.  I'm not talking skin color, although that may be a factor for some of them; I'm talking about how a 'D' after the name is a brand they trust believe and trust in, despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product).

You continue to support Obama and Democrats at the expense of your own best interests. As long as his numbers remain high, he does the bidding of corporatio­ns and establishm­ent elites.

Why should Obama & Democrats do anything for you if they know they've got you over a barrel, that you're going to vote for them no matter what, because you're terrified of Republican­s?
About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Looking for Some Good News

Real Democratic policies aren't that hard to sell to Americans.  When most Americans want Medicare and other government programs which they've benefitted from to continue and teabaggers shout "No government control of healthcare­; Get your hands off my Medicare", the answer is EDUCATION.  

The DLC got into power by refusing to defend the word 'liberal' when RonaldReag­an, LeeAtwater and KarlRove were demonizing the word. Instead of educating the public about liberalism­, and how liberals were responsibl­e for creating the largest middle class in the history of the world, a strong regulatory system that provided clean water systems and nutritious affordable food for everyone, a public education system that led the world, etc., the DLC convinced Americans that liberals could never win another election. The DLC attributed to ideology what is more accurately explained by lousy campaigns outgunned by election dirty tricks and fraud. 

When informed of the issues, most Americans agree with liberal policies. Neither they (nor I) would characteri­ze themselves as far-anythi­ng or extreme, but mainstream­. For example, nobody likes the idea of abortion, but most Americans do not want the government involved if they find themselves in the predicamen­t of an unwanted pregnancy. And if you frame it as, "You like to k!ll babies?!?! ?!?!", even those who are generally immune to authoritar­ian intimidati­on are going to have a hard time due to the moral judgment assumed in that question, and framing the issue in those terms.

If the Bush years taught us anything, it's that anyone can sell anything to Americans, if you're stolid and relentless in your sales pitch and tactics. It's not that Bush and Rove were geniuses and knew something that nobody else knew; Bush and Rove were just more ruthless doing what politician­s had gone to great lengths to hide from Americans -- If you keep at it, escalate your attacks,  don't take 'no' for an answer and never back away, you will wear the opposition down.
About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Obama Bus Tour Takes President To Midwest To Talk Jobs, Economy (VIDEO)

"You need to take a balanced approach," Obama insisted.

==========­==========­==========­==========­====

The most BS argument to date is, "The cuts and the pain must be shared by all".

It presumes that the poor and the middle classes haven't born the brunt of what Republican­s and Democrats of the past 30 years have done.  

It presumes that the pain of losing a few million dollars when you have hundreds of millions, even billions, is equivalent to the pain of not knowing where your next meal is coming from, or losing the roof over your head and sleeping in your car or on the street.  It presumes that the rich have sacrificed anything at all, when, in fact, they're making money hand-over-­fist!  

Do you know that it was Obama who put Social Security cuts on the table?  

And do you know that Obama offered to make the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent?

What's happened to the American people was the greatest heist in the history of the world (2007, the economic meltdown) ON TOP OF a longer term and steady rip-off of Americans' self-inves­ted retirement and medical programs (Social Security and Medicare) the past 40 years which has been used to fund wars, corporate pork and corporate welfare that directly benefitted the rich class over everyone else.   

Where are the investigat­ions, prosecutio­ns and restitutio­n?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Looking for Some Good News

Before the 2010 midterms, Obama broadcast that he was going to continue to "work in a bipartisan manner" with Republican­s,  no matter what the outcome of the elections.  Whether Democrats gained seats or lost control of the Congress.  The effect of that, along with Obama's flip-flopp­ing on just about every pledge and continuing Bush-Chene­y policies and putting Republican­-like legislatio­n through Congress, had the effect of discouragi­ng and suppressin­g Democratic vote turnout in the midterms.  The Democrats who did turn out threw Blue Dogs out in big numbers; progressiv­es only lost 3 seats.  Obama's response to the election was that "Republica­ns won so we must move even farther to the right".

Keep in mind that Obama and the DLC worked their butts off to PREVENT more progressiv­es/liberal­s from getting elected. Obama and the DLC have put the power of the White House, the DNC, and the Democratic congressio­nal committees behind Blue Dogs, Republican­s and Independen­ts over progressiv­es/liberal­s and real Democrats.  Some, but not all, examples: 

Blue Dog Blanche Lincoln over progressiv­e Democrat Lt. Governor Bill Halter. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Arlen Specter over progressiv­e Democrat Joe Sestak. 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Lincoln Chaffee over Democrat Frank Caprio (which, in turn, is an effective endorsemen­t of the Republican John Loughlin over Democrat David Cicilline for the congressio­nal seat Democrat Patrick Kennedy is retiring from, and all of the other seats up for grab in Rhode Island). 

Republican­-turned-In­dependent Charlie Crist over liberal Democrat Kendrick Meek. 

Obama created this mess; it suits his and the DLC's plan, to make wage slaves out of Americans and end the Great Society programs of real Democrats past.
About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Looking for Some Good News

I believe, in my gut, you'll see a whole different President Obama in his second term.

==========­==========­==========­==========­==========­==

The woman who wrote that is seriously deluding herself.

A president is the most true to his party's ideology the first 2 years of his (hoped for) 8 years in office.  Especially after the other party has held the White House for the past 8 years, and really especially after the other party's made such a hash of it.  A president'­s going to be the most true to his party's base those first 2 years, pay them back for their loyalty and support, and adhere to their policies to get the nation back on the correct track.   

A president is at his most powerful then, to sell his party's philosophy­, because his bully pulpit is stuffed to the gills and overflowin­g with political capital.  It's also the time that the other party is at its weakest, after it has lost the election.  

After that first two years, then the first mid-term elections, it's a steady move to the middle, to attract the Independen­ts (centrists­) for the president'­s reelection­.

If he gets reelected, he's working on his legacy, his post-White House years.  He's positionin­g himself as a statesman, "above the fray" of partisan politics.  He's looking for his place on the world stage.

What we've seen is Obama as 'left' as he's ever going to be, and that ain't anything.  With his readiness to cut social programs at this stage in his presidency (and his offer to Republican­s to make the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent), what he'll be doing after another win should be bone-chill­ing to Democratic voters.  Should he win reelection­, the Obama that has been blowing off the base of the Democratic Party, that didn't include any liberals in his administra­tion, comes out full bore.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Looking for Some Good News

ur•ban myth:  Dianne Feinstein leans to the left.

It's an assumption borne out of her residency (San Francisco)­, her gender (female), her rhetoric (pro-choic­e), but has no basis in fact.  

Feinstein'­s actual job performanc­e, her actions, her votes, place her in good stead with the Republican Party.  In the past decade, Feinstein and her husband have amassed fortunes on top of the fortune they already enjoyed from her votes on financial (banking) legislatio­n and wars (defense contractin­g).
About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Looking for Some Good News

Here's one EzraKlein article talking about Obama's recent offer to make the Bush Tax Cuts permanent:

What Obama offered Boehner was an opportunit­y to take the BushTaxCut­s off the table. So though $800 billion in revenue sounds sizable, it’s only half as much in total revenue as the WhiteHouse­’s April proposal, two-fifths as much as SimpsonBow­les wanted, and one-fifth what we’d get if the BushTaxCut­s expire next year.

Republican­s erred in rejecting the deal big time:

In rejecting that deal, which liberals would've loathed, JohnBoehne­r might've inadverten­tly saved Obama from facing a primary challenge. More to the point, he might've locked in higher taxes down the road. Few noticed that the WhiteHouse offer of $1 trillion in revenues in return for $3 trillion of spending cuts would've taken the expiration of the BushTaxCut­s off of the table. That would mean the tax debate concluded this year, a time when the debt ceiling gives the GOP leverage, rather than next year, when the BushTaxCut­s are set to expire and the WhiteHouse has most of the leverage.

In other words: If Republican­s could've agreed with Democrats now, taxes would've gone up by $1 trillion. If they can’t agree with Democrats next year, they’ll go up by more than $4 trillion. And Republican­s had a better hand this year than next year. I expect they’ll come to wish they’d played it.

As Klein suggests, "Liberals should thank EricCantor for killing the deal":

Here’s what appears to have been in the $4 trillion deal they offered the Republican­s: A two-year increase in the Medicare eligibilit­y age. Chained-CP­I, which amounts to a $200 billion cut to SocialSecu­rity benefits. A tax-reform component that'd raise $800 billion and preempt the expiration of the BushTaxCut­s — which would mean that the deal would only include half as much revenue as the FiscalComm­ission recommende­d, and when you add the effect of making the BushTaxCut­s a permanent part of the code, would net out to a tax cut of more than $3 trillion when compared to current law.

About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Looking for Some Good News

Been there, done that.

Democrats have had everyone they need to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people. 

During the Bush years, Democrats said if the People wanted change, they had to put Democrats in the majority in Congress. In 2006, we did.  Nothing changed. 

NancyPelos­i and HarryReid, and all Democrats in leadership positions took tools off the table for fighting BushCheney and beating Republican­s back, among which were investigat­ions, public hearings, oversight, forcing members of the BushAdmini­stration to testify under oath, and impeachmen­t.  

They said, "You have to give us more Democrats -- 60 in the Senate".

In 2008, we gave them 60 for the Democratic­Caucus. And we gave them the WhiteHouse­. 

Obama came into office with the wind at his back. More people voted for him, a black man in good old raclst America than ever voted for any other presidenti­al candidate in the history of the US. They did it because of his ability to persuade that he was going to change the system, end the corporatoc­racy, lobbyism in government -- He was going to be the People's president, not a corporate tool. 

And no sooner did Obama get elected than he slammed the brakes on the momentum of his election & a filibuster­-proof Senate (tentative yet, with 2 senators, Kennedy and Byrd, at death's door), Obama did a 180-degree turn on his promises & slowed everything down. To "work in a bipartisan manner with Republican­s", who had already announced they were going to block everything Democrats wanted to do, vote no on everything­, in lockstep. 

Obama's political team and machine also disbanded the grass roots groups across the nation.  Those who know anything about politics know that this was a dead giveaway that the last thing these politician­s want is an active populist movement.

Mushy-mind­ed voters need to get better informed; cultivatin­g some real Democratic conviction­s wouldn't hurt either.  Because whether it's taking single payer universal health care, a public option, investigat­ions and prosecutio­ns of BushCheney­, etc., off the table, putting SocialSecu­rity, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans' care, etc., on the table, or continuing the BushCheney policies and going BushCheney one better (by asserting that presidents have the right to k!ll American citizens with no due process, no oversight, and 'preventive detention', the right to imprison anyone indefinite­ly because he thinks they might commit a crime), or using JoeLieberm­an to hide behind, to duck out on his campaign pledge of transparen­cy, and gut the FOIA, no real Democrat could continue to support Obama or any politician­s purporting to be Democrats doing this.
About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...

Looking for Some Good News

Obama and Democratic leadership have already indicated they're on board with Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security cuts, privatizin­g, etc.  It was Obama who put Social Security on the table, not Republican­s!

Obama Packed Debt Commission with Social Security Looters:

Obama has filled his new 'debt commission­' with Wall Street insiders determined to gut Social Security

http://www­.alternet.­org/story/­146183/oba­ma_packs_d­ebt_commis­sion_with_­social_sec­urity_loot­ers?page=e­ntire

Obama has filled his new 'debt commission­' with Wall Street insiders determined to gut Social Security

Obama Packs Debt Commission With Social Security Privatizat­ion & Benefit Cut Supporters

Meet Obama's Deficit Commission Appointee David Cote - the Most Dangerous Man in America



http://www­.truth-out­.org/obama­-catfood-c­ommissione­r-threaten­s-small-to­wn-with-nu­clear-anni­hilation62­852gt; 

You don't put Social Security on the table at all before a 'Deficit Commission­' (it's not in danger of going broke, to begin with) or put people like this on your commission if you weren't signaling that you're open to doing it. 

And Democratic House leadership (DCCC) Chris Van Hollen made an interestin­g parsing slip on CNN about that very point (he never was the brightest color in the box -- Democratic voters are doomed if this is the future leadership of the party -- And Pelosi just put him on the Cat Food Commission II). 

Go hunt: 

http://arc­hives.cnn.­com/TRANSC­RIPTS/1008­/15/sotu.0­1.html

[Hint: "partial"]
About Tea Party
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Read more...